It is known that internet has facilitated business-to-business (or “B2B”) markets, for instance, those in which business transactions may be negotiated and agreed electronically. Computers and their operations provide a significant part of the infrastructure of a B2B marketplace, and facilitate business transactions in those markets with efficiencies previously unforeseen.
The development of internet and associated B2B markets has in particular benefited small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As shown in FIG. 1, where a traditional way 100 of a business operation between a seller or supply company A (12) and a buyer company B (14) before the emergency of the B2B markets is illustrated. In a business transaction 11, the seller or supply company A (12) sells and delivers goods valued at, e.g. $1M, to the buyer company B (14) perhaps after a long negotiation between the two parties. In return, in a separate process 13, the buyer company B (14) then makes a payment for the value of the goods, here $1M, to the seller or supply company A (12) in cash or cash equivalents such as a check.
FIG. 2 illustrates a business transaction 200 between a seller or supply company A (22) and a buyer company B (24) with the help of current B2B markets. Seller or supply company A (22) releases information about its products at step 27 to an e-commerce platform 26, such as Google®, Yahoo®, or eBay®, which can be found and got by anyone who logons to the platform 26 such as buyer company B (24) at step 29. Seller or company A (22) and buyer company B (24) can negotiate and reach an agreement electronically through the platform 26. Then goods valued at, e.g. $1M, is delivered to the buyer company B (24) at step 21. In return, in a separate process 23, the buyer company B (24) then makes a payment for the value of the goods, here $1M, to the seller or supply company A (22) in cash or cash equivalents such as a check or a wire transfer. Normally buyer company B (24) or seller company A (22) or both would pay a commission to the platform 26 at step 25. Both buyer company B (24) and seller company A (22) may also pay a membership or subscription fee to the platform 26 as well.
In other words, platform 26 is more or less functioning as an open information exchange platform. While it is true that users including SMEs have benefited tremendously from the information flow and efficiency offered by such “open” e-platforms, it may cause the unnecessary disclosure of trading information including the product price, the buyer's information, the trading scale, to unwanted third parties. For instance, the disclosure of the price information for products might cause unwanted competition between the platform members, which will counteract the positive effect brought by the B2B platform. More specifically, for instance, most B2B e-commerce platforms take an “open platform” approach, which allows SMEs (or any user) to register and compete for businesses when they pay for the standard membership or transaction fees. The openness of the Internet allows SMEs to market their products and attract new customers. In general it works as followed:                Step 1: suppliers register on an e-commerce platform and post the product information, such as product name, specification and price thereon;        Step 2: buyers log on to the e-commerce platform and search for wanted products;        Step 3: buyers find desired products and make an offer; and        Step 4: suppliers who offer the lowest prices often win the deal.        
Due to the openness nature of the Internet, the online marketplace features many-to-many relationships. Since suppliers have to reveal their product prices or other trade secrets on the Internet, this approach, while allowing suppliers to expose their products to almost unlimited number of potential buyers, has some negative impacts on SMEs such as                1. Pressing the profit margin of suppliers: To attract the eyeballs of buyers, suppliers are forced to lower product prices on the Internet. Therefore, to openly compete for each and every order, suppliers have to scarify their profit margin;        2. Affecting the loyalty of customers to suppliers: All suppliers for the same kind of products post their products on the Internet, so potential buyers will be able to view product information from different competitors, and pick products from one supplier who offers lowest prices, not necessarily from the supplier(s) who has an existing relationship with the customer(s); and        3. Losing the competitive advantages: Posting some of the detailed and sensitive product description on the Internet can lead to losing the competitive advantages for suppliers.        
Another obstacle for the development and operation of SMEs is, despite the vital role played by SMEs in economy, that it has been very difficult for SMEs to access capital. For examples, both regulatory barriers and large expenses associated with stock listings make it quite difficult, if not impossible, for a vast majority of SMEs to access capital in the capital markets through public offering. Moreover, many SMEs do not have a long enough history or successful track record that can be relied on by banks or potential investors in making loan decisions, which further limits the ability of SMEs to access capitals using loan as a vehicle. Furthermore, it does not help that many SMEs do not have sophisticated financial reports.
Also, in recent years, companies have obtained financing by engaging in “securitization” transactions in which the company (or, more typically, a bankruptcy-remote special purpose vehicle) issues debt instruments backed by an asset or pool of assets in which the principal and interest is paid from the cash flow generated by the assets. In most securitizations, the transaction is structured to exclude the credit risk of the sponsor of the transaction so that the credit worthiness of the debt instruments issued in the securitization depends primarily on the credit risk inherent in the underlying financial assets. Once the extent of such credit risk has been quantified, typically by a rating agency, a form of credit and liquidity support can be supplied to cover the risk, permitting the securities issued in the transaction to be highly rated, even in cases where the sponsor of the transaction is not rated or is a poor credit risk. The levels of credit support and liquidity required in a securitization may be a function of the requirements set by the rating agencies based on their analysis of the quality of the underlying assets and the structure of the securities in light of the probable rates of default and recovery on the underlying assets. Because traditional general obligation debt is backed by the credit of the entire operating company, and the operating company is subject to a wide range of risks in the market place, an operating company seeking to issue highly-rated general obligations may be required to maintain relatively higher levels of capital and liquidity than in a securitization transaction in which the risk can be segregated to the performance of particular assets.
Securitization transactions include “cash flow” or “market value” transactions. In a “cash flow” securitization, the securities issued in the transaction are paid from roughly matching payments expected to be received on the underlying assets. In “market value” securitizations, the ability to repay the securities depends on the sufficiency of, and ability to realize upon, the value of the underlying assets. For example, in a typical “market value” transaction, the initial offering raises enough cash to pay coupon payments, and the final terminating payment is financed by selling the assets to third parties.
However, one way or another, these types of securitization transactions based on the value of the underlying assets. When the value of the underlying assets, which has inherent risks associated with overall economy doubtable if the integrity of the rating agency is not reliable, plunges, the values of these securitization transactions would also crush, and even worse, these securities may find ways to “poison” other related assets. The sub-mortgage crisis is a livid example.
Therefore, a heretofore unaddressed need exists in the art to address the aforementioned deficiencies and inadequacies.